On Friday, October 25, 2024, Chris Forsyth, executive director of The Judicial Integrity Project, published an opinion piece on the nonpartisan news website Colorado Sun, criticizing Amendment H, which proposes changes to the judicial discipline process in Colorado. Forsyth argues that the amendment is misleading and would ultimately undermine public trust in the state’s judicial system.

Amendment H seeks to introduce a private appeal process for judges facing disciplinary action, allowing them to contest decisions made by the existing discipline commission. Forsyth pointed out that this change would disproportionately favor judges and maintain a lack of accountability within the system. He highlighted that the current process, managed by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, has historically dismissed a significant majority of public complaints—97.2% of the 7,157 complaints filed over the past 40 years.

Forsyth emphasized that under the current framework, the commission operates largely in secrecy, handling 99.8% of complaints privately. The proposed amendment would not alter this confidentiality; however, it would allow judges to appeal private disciplinary decisions, a privilege not extended to complainants whose cases are dismissed. This, according to Forsyth, would further entrench a culture of opacity in judicial accountability.

The opinion piece also noted that Amendment H would expand the role of the Colorado Supreme Court in the disciplinary process. Presently, the Supreme Court only gets involved in private discipline cases at the request of the commission. The amendment would enable judges to appeal private disciplinary decisions to an adjudicatory panel and subsequently to the Supreme Court, increasing the court’s influence over these matters.

Forsyth raised concerns about the potential decrease in transparency and accountability resulting from these changes. Currently, Supreme Court opinions regarding judicial discipline are public, but the proposed amendment would mandate that appeals concerning private discipline remain confidential. This shift, he argues, would shield judges from public scrutiny and diminish the accountability mechanisms designed to protect the integrity of the judicial system.

Furthermore, the amendment proposes the establishment of a 12-member adjudicatory board composed of judges, attorneys, and citizens. This board would review decisions made by the discipline commission and serve as an intermediary in cases of private discipline. Forsyth pointed out that only a small number of judges—ten in the past 40 years—have faced public discipline in Colorado, with most cases resolved through stipulations rather than hearings. The new adjudicatory board would theoretically provide an additional layer of review, but Forsyth questioned its effectiveness, given the low incidence of public disciplinary hearings.

The opinion piece concludes with a stark warning about the implications of Amendment H for public confidence in the judicial system. Forsyth argues that the amendment does not fulfill its proponents’ claims of reform. Instead, it would create substantial barriers to holding judges accountable, expand the Supreme Court’s power in disciplinary matters, and reduce public transparency.

In light of these assertions, Forsyth encourages voters to reject Amendment H, framing it as a step backward for judicial accountability in Colorado.

 

 

Source: Colorado Sun